Flattening Lie-nielsen planes

[Anonymous]

My 5 1/2" is a super-smoother, and so I expect to be able to take <0.001" shavings with it.Cheers
Steve

Steve

What makes your 5.5 a "super smoother" yet my #4.5 a smoother? What is "super" about it?

Is it just DCs repeated use of the meaningless term?

I subscribe to Chris Schwart's view that planes were designed with a particular purpose in mind and when used as originally intended, they work very well indeed. My smoothers are a LN #3, LV BU and a LN #4.5, each of which have soles I care about and are very flat. The rest take shavings in excess of 4 thou and so I don't bother about the soles.

When used as orignally intended, the journey from rough wood to finished surface is much shorter.

I have no problem with people using any plane for whatever purpose they want, but "super" smoother?????

 

[Karl]

Is it just DCs repeated use of the meaningless term?

Speaking of DC, haven't seen him post here for a number of months. Hope he hasn't gone for good.

Cheers

Karl

 

[Karl]

The rest take shavings in excess of 4 thou and so I don't bother about the soles.

Which begs the question as to why LN/Clifton/LV bother to engineer the things to such high standards in the first place. Or why, for that matter, use LN/LV/Clifton planes for "rougher" work.

Cheers

Karl

 

[tnimble]

Is it just DCs repeated use of the meaningless term?

Speaking of DC, haven't seen him post here for a number of months. Hope he hasn't gone for good.

Cheers

Karl

He was goin to be at the Baptist weekend woodworking show, but he called sick about 3 weeks in advance. I hope everything works out for David.

 

[tnimble]

My 5 1/2" is a super-smoother, and so I expect to be able to take <0.001" shavings with it.Cheers
Steve

Steve

What makes your 5.5 a "super smoother" yet my #4.5 a smoother? What is "super" about it?

Is it just DCs repeated use of the meaningless term?

I subscribe to Chris Schwart's view that planes were designed with a particular purpose in mind and when used as originally intended, they work very well indeed. My smoothers are a LN #3, LV BU and a LN #4.5, each of which have soles I care about and are very flat. The rest take shavings in excess of 4 thou and so I don't bother about the soles.

When used as orignally intended, the journey from rough wood to finished surface is much shorter.

I have no problem with people using any plane for whatever purpose they want, but "super" smoother?????

Super as in large. When a larger plane such as a no 5.5 is flat, with a norrow mouth, just as a no 3 or no 4 (slash dot anything) it has the same intended purpose as the traditional intended purpose of a no 3 or 4.

The big difference being its weigth which makes it much easier to push it trough tough wood at higher blade angels, and due to its length and more downward pressure flattens the board even further.

A 'super' smoother is used the same as traditionally a smoother would, as the final step after roughing and refining. Its a finishing plane not a dimensioning plane.

The dimentioning is done first either with an power thicknesser / jointer or with a fore and jointer plane.

 

[tnimble]

Which begs the question as to why LN/Clifton/LV bother to engineer the things to such high standards in the first place. Or why, for that matter, use LN/LV/Clifton planes for "rougher" work.

Cheers

Karl

Because now the user can decide for what stage to use the plane, just by how to setup the blade. Instead as of traditionally with for instace back in the days Stanley desided the use by different machining standard for flatness and (non adjustable) mouth opening.

And for the second part, why not? You're not limited by bying only one plane. You could buy three LN no 8s and set them up as a super fore, a jointer and a tera smoother.

 

[Karl]

And for the second part, why not? You're not limited by bying only one plane. You could buy three LN no 8s and set them up as a super fore, a jointer and a tera smoother.

I can think of one good reason - cost. 3 LN 8's would set you back over £1100. A tad ridiculous, methinks.

I don't understand why you would want to use such expensive planes for rough work.

Cheers

Karl

 

[tnimble]

I can think of one good reason - cost. 3 LN 8's would set you back over £1100. A tad ridiculous, methinks.

I don't understand why you would want to use such expensive planes for rough work.

Festool also promotes their plunge saw for sawing plasterboard. Also reticulates to use a such a expensive device for a thing than can be done with just a retractable knife and a chalkline. Neither is the precision of the festool kti needed to put up an interial wall that's going to be plastered or recieve wall paper. Yet they do, and some contractors chose to do so.

 

[ivan]

I thought 'super smoother' = panel plane? I don't know how accurate is careful lapping on a granite plate, my smallest feeler is 1.5 thou, but LN suggest ocasional lapping to keep plane flat, so presumably they don't think it degrades their standard. The body of a longer plane will flex under load (often forgotten!) but the leading edge of the mouth must have good contact (Holtey's 0.5 thou) The sole of both my LNs and Cliftons were slightly convex across the sole when new. Only the No. 9 has retained accurate 90deg sides some 3 to 4 years after purchase. Shorter planes can be checked with the blade of a large engineers square.

 

[Anonymous]

The rest take shavings in excess of 4 thou and so I don't bother about the soles.

Which begs the question as to why LN/Clifton/LV bother to engineer the things to such high standards in the first place. Or why, for that matter, use LN/LV/Clifton planes for "rougher" work.

Cheers

Karl

Now that is a pretty good question. However, they sell quality tools, and so the soles etc. will all be made to the same standard using the same machinery.

 

[Anonymous]

And for the second part, why not? You're not limited by bying only one plane. You could buy three LN no 8s and set them up as a super fore, a jointer and a tera smoother.

I can think of one good reason - cost. 3 LN 8's would set you back over £1100. A tad ridiculous, methinks.

I don't understand why you would want to use such expensive planes for rough work.

Cheers

Karl

Well, let me be honest and own up

I own 10 LN bench/block planes, 1 LN scraper plane, 5 LV planes (2 BU and shoulder) and one Clifton #7.

Did I spend loads of money? Not really. Six of them are second hand, most came from US with a weak dollar, and I bought them over a period of 6 years, so didn't feel the cost at all

I would say that I spent considerably less on planes over the past 6 years that I will pass on to my children after 30 years of use than people who smoke spent on **** to kill themselves!!! :roll:

I have owned a Stanley #7 and Record #6 and sold both to replace them with a second hand LN #6 for £150 and a second hand Clifton #7 for £100 - both of these work much better than the Stanley/Record even though I use them for rough work.


If you're still reading
6 years at 20 **** a day at £4.00 per packet = 52*4 *7 * 6 = £8736!!
My LNS/LVs/Cliftons cost around £3000 in that time and I could sell them for that much on ebay or the forum tomorrow :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[jonbikebod]

In my experience all cast iron planes (whatever the grade of iron and heat treatments) continue to move to some extent. I am sure the planes from the three quality manufacturers are pretty flat when they leave the factory; none seem to be after a couple of years.
I guess I am of the ‘engineering’ persuasion. If you take the trouble to make your pillar drill perfectly perpendicular to the table you can use it for rough work and very accurate work. A lathe with worn headstock bearing can only turn rough work, one with good bearings can do both. I flatten my L-N planes and go down through the grits to a polish. This makes the plane more pleasant to use, requires less effort and leaves a better finish on the work.
They are of course capable of taking very fine shavings and achieving a very high level of flatness. – I can still easily open the mouth and use them for rough work where the polished sole is still an advantage.
I consider periodic flattening/polishing part of normal tool maintenance.
Jon.

 

[dunbarhamlin]

Crikey, only been away for two days choppin' 'oles.
Yep, as Laura said, Tony. I use my 5 1/2 as a 'super' smoother as in super-sized. I like the heft - perhaps because though I have more bench planes than strictly necessary now (7 Cliftons and a few others for good measure) I started with a solitary Clifton #7 which did everything my block plane didn't.
(Flippantly, to me it's also super because I like the snazzy Racing Green paint job )
Cheers
Steve

 

[bugbear]

2. How do you know that the float glass or other material used for the lapping is flat. Again if it is a certified reference surface then you know, but otherwise its hard to be sure - maybe you could check it with your straightedge (but see (1) above...)

3. Can you guarantee that the lapping can be done without rocking and creating a convexity in the sole - obviously it can be done but there is risk there and how do you know that you can make it better than it was to start with?

What I'm getting at here is that I am unconvinced that most of us have the equipment to verify and then correct the kind of deviations that get talked about.

Agreed. The process known as lapping, and used by woodworkers on plane soles is questionable (IMHO)..

BugBear

 

[custard]

2. How do you know that the float glass or other material used for the lapping is flat. Again if it is a certified reference surface then you know, but otherwise its hard to be sure - maybe you could check it with your straightedge (but see (1) above...)

3. Can you guarantee that the lapping can be done without rocking and creating a convexity in the sole - obviously it can be done but there is risk there and how do you know that you can make it better than it was to start with?

What I'm getting at here is that I am unconvinced that most of us have the equipment to verify and then correct the kind of deviations that get talked about.

Agreed. The process known as lapping, and used by woodworkers on plane soles is questionable (IMHO)..

BugBear

Why questionable?

1. Float glass is easily checkable against a certified straight edge. This works fine for the degree of accuracy required by even precision woodworking.

2. As long as you keep the entire plane sole on the glass surface and proceed with reasonable care I've never found "rocking" to be a practical problem. As I use the same pressure lapping as I use for planing the flexing of the plane's chassis is also equalised.

3. The improvement in sole flatness can be seen by two methods. Firstly I use a permanent marker to draw a grid on the plane's sole. This then erodes in a rational and progressive way. Secondly I check before and after flattening with the straight edge and feeler gauges. And as the erosion of the drawn grid is consistent with the learning from the straight edge test it adds to my confidence that this is all working as it's supposed to.

4. I see a real performance difference pre and post lapping. I get finer shavings, easier more consistent and more precise blade setting, and less break out (in particular where a hollow immediately in front of the blade or a hump immediately behind the blade has been removed)

 

[bugbear]

The process known as lapping, and used by woodworkers on plane soles is questionable (IMHO)..

BugBear

Why questionable?

http://www.geocities.com/plybench/flatten.html

BugBear

 

[custard]

The process known as lapping, and used by woodworkers on plane soles is questionable (IMHO)..

BugBear

Why questionable?

http://www.geocities.com/plybench/flatten.html

BugBear

Thanks for that link. It's interesting that the author says float glass flattening has the problem of swarf build-up causing slight convexity. I'd make two points,

1. In practise I've found a slightly convex plane to be a better performer than an equally concave plane. I don't know the reason why this is so, but suspect a concave plane may need a longer length of unsupported blade to function, which exacerbates chatter.

2. I agree with the swarf comments, so I regularly vacuum the sandpaper to remove this. It's quicker to just brush or blow it off, but the dust might be particularly noxious.

 

[bugbear]

http://www.geocities.com/plybench/flatten.html

Thanks for that link. It's interesting that the author says float glass flattening has the problem of swarf build-up causing slight convexity. I'd make two points,

1. In practise I've found a slightly convex plane to be a better performer than an equally concave plane. I don't know the reason why this is so, but suspect a concave plane may need a longer length of unsupported blade to function, which exacerbates chatter.

2. I agree with the swarf comments, so I regularly vacuum the sandpaper to remove this. It's quicker to just brush or blow it off, but the dust might be particularly noxious.

(chuckle) "the Author" is me. On your (2) I recommend a nice strong magnet. Picks up and holds the swarf nicely.

Did you read how S&S get lapping to work properly?

BugBear

 

[Mr Ed]

Did you read how S&S get lapping to work properly?

BugBear

Can you elaborate?

Ed

 

[bugbear]

Did you read how S&S get lapping to work properly?

BugBear

Can you elaborate?

Ed

This link from my page:

http://www.sauerandsteiner.com/news/200 ... sucks.html

BugBear